Re: Don't your phones have a blue light filter...
Mine kicks in when I tell it to, I can also drop the screen brightness.
I wish it went a smidge redder and a fair bit darker.
But it's better than nothing.
3083 posts • joined 25 Mar 2008
Most people don't care about a great many things. I, for example, don't care about the habitat of the Lesser Crested Grebe Warbler because I don't know I should care, but that doesn't mean protecting it isn't a goo thing. (I made that species up just for illustrative purposes).
Most people don't know how the Internet works,most people don't know they should care about the ".org" privatisation but that doesn't mean we shouldn't protect it.
This whole line of argument is some weight variant of argumentum ad populum.
Personal use of office equipment is almost always permitted "within reason". No one is going to bat an eye-lid if you print of a sheet or two for personal need (or use the work PC for a personal email). When it starts to disrupt the day job or incur significant costs, then you'll get a warning.
"Sky (still) get your money, you get (I assume) a better mix of programming for you."
Company sells package A in country 1 for X. Company also sells package A in country 2 for Y. X is 2Y. The company wants to sell as many at price X as possible because there is more profit.
Geo-locks are one tool that lets them do this. So the company will get upset if that is removed. Under TTIP they would probably sue the countries involved (and win).
It seems that "free trade" only applies to the seller, not the purchaser.
"There is also the competition aspect, why should you pay more when the content is available elsewhere for cheaper."
That's true of everything, but the companies want one-way free trade. i.e. they can sell everywhere, but you can only buy where the company decides.
Which isn't free trade at all.
"But surely every police force has a sufficiently trained and funded CSI team who can analyse DNA from the slightest speck and match it within minutes through a national database which is so fast and efficient it even flashes up the mug shots of each sample it's matching against."
Almost, which is why the smart crooks poison the scene by dropping items they have collect from random places. In the TV show the evil-doers had a "DNA-bomb" device to poison the evidence; how long before we see that in the real world?
Yes. Well, it certainly shouldn't be taken as proof of identity - instead part of some greater whole. The general mantra is "something you have, something you know".
Biometrics are pretty simple for people and, as with many things in security, ease of use is inverse to strength of security.
Just look at the state of things in the USA. We don't want such a small number of operators, we need true competition.
We need legislation to ensure that the networks are open to all comers and that it remains possible to a new player to enter should incumbents try to gouge customers.
The sale isn't the issue, the day is.
I also have the quaint idea that retail stores should open 1200-2000, rather than 0900-1700. This woyld give them better overlap with their customers. Also, it would partially alleviate rush hour.
I did look at a few black slaes after work, but anything of interest was either not on sales, or only a couple of pounds off; no mega-deals.
"No self-respecting terrorist (well: one who hopes or expects to walk away from an "incident") would give up the goods that easily and therefore the only data they will collect will be from harmless individuals and private citizens with no nefarious intent."
AIUI, the terrorists who flow into the WTC made no effort to hide the identifies. So these measures would have been ineffective anyway as no one joined the dots.
Or maybe they did, and let it happen. /tin-foil-hat
"Most useful remedy might be to simply provide more information to the public on call quality."
You could probably use an FoI to OfCom to get that, whole will then refuse under "Commercial Confidentiality".
The one thing a Tory government does not want is more openness and the possibility of being scrutinised by the public. Not that Labour would be any better. Both cut from the same cloth.
People moan about the fractured nature of the mobile space in the UK, this upper-crust, Etonian old-boy doesn't give two damns.
He has a problem with one or two calls and all hell lets lose.
Maybe if his pension funds collapse or his back mis-sells him some insurance he'll begin to give a crap about regulating the financial sector.
Until then, it'll be the usual "Piss off, prole" attitude from the Tories.
"but steadfastly refuses to produce a stable API that would allow connected device manufacturers (and everyone else) to build and maintain their own clients at their own expense."
Because the BBC is run by technology ignorant middle managers who are only interested in expanding their fiefdoms than providing an actual service to the public.
iPlayer could become a reference implementation and the community could pick up the slack. This would allow any OS, any device to be supported that the community saw fit.
As to unflashable TVs...that's a matter for OEMs. Consumers can help by simply not buying a TV that they can't upgrade or install new software on. Which is all of them at the moment!
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020